Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a safe, non-invasive treatment for renal calculi. During SWL energy is focused on in order to break kidney stones and this energy can be varied in size from a narrow (or small) focal zone to a wide (or large) focal zone. This is a multi-centered, randomized study comparing the single treatment success rates of narrow and wide focal zones during SWL.
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a safe and non-invasive treatment for kidney stones. The SWL machine that is currently in use has a unique feature: the focal zone or the energy that the SWL energy is focused on in order to break kidney stones can be varied in size from a narrow (or small) focal zone to a wide (or large) focal zone. Previous lithotripters have only offered one focal size that corresponded to a narrow range. The objective of this study is to compare the single-treatment success rates of narrow and wide focal zones for the shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones between 5 and 15 mm in greatest diameter, while maintaining a constant overall lithotripsy energy level. A wide focal zone may offer some trade-offs when compared with the traditional narrow focal zone: since the area being treated is larger, it is more likely that the stone will receive adequate energy as it moves with patient breathing during treatment, and less energy per cubic inch will be delivered to the kidney around the stone (which might lead to a lower degree of renal injury); on the other hand less energy per cubic inch will also be delivered to the stone, so that stone fragmentation might be inferior to that with a narrow focal zone. Thus, with this study we want to determine whether there is a significant difference in both stone fragmentation and in renal injury (as measured by the incidence of post-treatment renal hematoma or bruises, and by measuring urinary markers indicating the degree of renal cellular damage). Aside from the random choice of focal zone size, there will be no change to the standard of care for lithotripsy treatment. We predict that the narrow focal shock zone will result in superior stone fragmentation, with higher single-treatment stone free and success rates. However, we may identify a slight increased incidence in the rate of subcapsular renal hematoma and renal damage, as detected by urinary markers.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
275
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the most common treatment modality for kidney stones. It is a safe and non-invasive treatment performed on patients under intravenous sedation (light anesthesia) on an out-patient basis, whereby shock waves are generated by a source external to the patient's body and are then propagated into the body and focused on a kidney stone. The unique quality of SWL is in its exploitation of shock wave focusing. The Storz lithotripter is an electromagnetic lithotripter with a unique design that allows for a dual focus system with the option of either a narrow (6x28 mm) or wide (9x50 mm) focal zone, depending on the clinical situation. This is the first lithotripter on the market to allow for two different focal zones for shock wave targeting.
Vancouver General Hospital, Jim Pattison Pavilion G floor station 5 GI/GU Lithotripsy suite
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
St. Joseph's Hospital, University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Lithotripsy suite, 5th floor Cardinal Carter North Wing
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
SWL efficiency quotient comparison between narrow focus vs wide focus
Comparison of single-treatment lithotripsy success rates at 2 and 12 weeks post-lithotripsy. Successful treatment will be defined as either stone-free status or presence of clinically insignificant asymptomatic residual fragments ≤ 4 mm. SWL efficiency quotient for the treatment groups, as calculated by the standardized formula: % stone-free divided by (100 + % re-treated + % auxiliary procedures).
Time frame: 2 and 12 weeks
Incidence of perirenal hematomas
Comparing the narrow and wide foci for the presence of perirenal hematomas post treatment on ultrasound.
Time frame: post treatment
Biomarkers for renal injury
Comparisons of urinary markers for identifying renal injury
Time frame: day 0; day 1; 1 week
Time to stone passage
Time it took to pass the stone for both arms will be compared for the 3 month follow up time.
Time frame: 12 weeks
Pain will be compared between narrow vs wide focus arms
Visual analog pain scores will be compared between arms.
Time frame: day 0 (post treatment)
Complication rates
Complication rates will be compared between narrow and wide focus treatment arms.
Time frame: 12 weeks
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.